You note that the proposed increase to the minimum income requirement and inclusion of new standards are reasonable updates to this essential program that keeps “real farmers” in business. We agree with this opinion and think that S-589 will improve the farmland assessment program.

More radical adjustments to the program are misguided, such as increasing the minimum income threshold to $10,000 which would render nearly 40 percent — roughly 400,000 acres — of farmland ineligible for farmland tax assessment. This would not only decimate the state’s agricultural land base for farming, but would also result in stronger development pressure on farmland and higher property taxes.

Farmland assessment is not a tax shelter for the state’s higher-income residents. In many cases, these landowners lease their land to bona fide, full-time farmers. In a state where farmland is expensive to own, the ability to lease these lands by non-farming landowners proves vital for farmers looking to establish sufficient lands needed for long-term farm viability.

Additionally, farmland assessment applies only to the land that is being farmed. Farmers pay the same property taxes as everyone else on their homes and pay taxes at market value for all farm buildings (barns, sheds, fencing, etc.) and other improvements. Even with farmland tax assessment, New Jersey farmers still pay three times the national average in property taxes per acre of farmland. The overall aim of the farmland assessment program is to keep farming viable by offering tax relief on land actively devoted to an agricultural or horticultural use.

We appreciate your reliance on the facts and recognition that the adjustments to the program proposed in S-589 are reasonable.

By making appropriate updates to the program that do not adversely impact legitimate farmers, the bill provides necessary clarification that will strengthen the program going forward.